Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion

We welcome and appreciate civil discussion of requests to delete or undelete pages when reasonable objections are made or are likely, the advice in Wikiversity:Deletions is followed, and other options have failed. A good attitude is to explain what you have tried, ask for help or advice from fellow Wikiversity participants on what to do now, keep an open mind, accept any community consensus, and focus on how pages can be improved. Finding ways to improve pages is the preferred outcome of any discussion and consensus here. Pages should always be kept when reasonable concerns are adequately addressed. Reasons and responses should be specific and relate to Wikiversity policy or scope in some way, kept brief, and stated in a positive or neutral way. Vague reasons ("out of scope", "disruptive") may be ignored.

A clear consensus should emerge before archiving a request. Often discussion takes a week or more to reach a clear consensus. Remember to add {{dr}} to the top of pages nominated for deletion. You can put "keep", "delete", or "neutral" at the beginning of your response, but consensus is established by discussion and reasoning, not mere voting.

the main complaint was "cross-wiki disruption," allegedly by Ben Steigmann, the attributed manager of the page, which was a "seminar subpage" allowing points of view to be expressed. This avoids most content dispute, as long as the subpage is presented in an overall neutral context. In fact, the disruption, which was drastic on Wikipedia, was by a set of impersonating socks, not Steigmann, and it was the impersonator, who had raised the fuss over Steigmann in the first place, seeking to attack the Wikiversity reesource. (On Wikipedia, but also here). See Steward requests/Checkuser and Request custodian action here. It was assumed on Wikipedia that Steigmann was a series of accounts that were not his, but rather were actually socks of the one attempting to get him blocked there, ultimately by provoking an administrator over this resource.

an SPA (sock of the same impersonator) was allowed in the discussion to mislead participants as to what Wikipedia checkuser had found. In fact, the Wikipedia checkuser had not connected the accounts to Steigmann (and if the one non-stale Steigmann account had been the others, it would have been seen by checkuser, but it was not.)

Steigmann was accused of "profiteering" from the resource. This has nothing to do with the resource appropriateness for Wikiversity.

There were claims of copyvio. Where copyvio is not the core of a resource, it is abnormal here to delete the resource based on it. Rather, normal editing is used to clean up copyvio. If there is a large amount, the user can be requested to clean it up. Only a failure of less intrusive approaches would lead to deletion.

The discussion was fast-closed without a clear policy-based reason, based on a vote count that included the abusive SPA (Sci-fi-). Socking rates are high for SPAs in discussions like this. The close was also by the proponent of deletion, which used to be strongly avoided here. What was the rush? There is more, but this should be enough.

I request that the resource be undeleted, the original discussion being hopelessly contaminated by the errors, and that if any user still believes that it should be deleted, they may request it again. However, standard deletion policy suggests attempting first to fix any alleged problems with the resource. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Dave as Ben has admitted to sock-puppeting on "myerslover" "psychicbias" and "Gggtt" and evading his block should nt the content stay deleted? He is banned on wikipedia, why give him a platform to attack Wikipedia here? LadyDragoner (discuss • contribs) 09:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC) — LadyDragoner (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have tagged the discussion contributions of this user, per common Wikipedia practice. As well, I will warn the user about personal attacks, since the above is not actually a formal warning. Custodial review is invited. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Please also see the user's CentralAuth, showing that the account was created only 22 hours ago, and that all edits associated with this account is related to the Ben Stiegmann issue only. Thanks. -Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 16:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)